W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2012

[RC6] absolute-replaced-height-007, 014, 021, 028 and 035 require improvements, corrections

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:29:49 -0400
Message-ID: <be3ad300e17333a3f2d2e35e62c4deb5.squirrel@ed-sh-cp3.entirelydigital.com>
To: "Arron Eicholz" <arron.eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Public CSS test suite mailing list" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>











In those tests, the containing block's height is 'auto' and can be
easily be resolved to 0 since there are no statically positioned and no
relatively positioned elements inside such containing block.

These tests all claim to be testing a "height of containing block that
cannot be resolved" kind of situation. But in section 10.5, we can read

	the height of the containing block of an absolutely positioned
	element is independent of the size of the element itself, and
	thus a percentage height on such an element *_can always be
	However, it may be that the height is not known until elements
	that come later in the document have been processed. "

and so, the consequences of this, it seems, is that the height of the
containing block of an absolutely positioned replaced element can be

I've made 3 tests (and also tried a few variations of it):




and I have verified that these 3 tests are rendered the same by Firefox
15, Opera 12.02 and Chrome 21.0.1180.89. I have not checked with IE in
any version.

Also, in the assert text of absolute-replaced-height-007, 014, 021, 028
and 035 tests, the expression "percentage based intrinsic height" is
often written but, as far as I understand this, there is no such thing.

And as for the values 300px for width and 150px for height from section
10.6.2, which goes like this

if 'height' has a computed value of 'auto', but none of the conditions
above are met, then the used value of 'height' must be set to the height
of the largest rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio, has a height not greater
than 150px, and has a width not greater than the device width.

these values are, I believe, merely pre-defined-fallback used values. I
do not believe they stand for intrinsic height or intrinsic width, the
way this is defined in section 3.1 [2].

The assert text that says:

<meta name="assert" content="An absolutely positioned replaced element
with a percentage height that cannot be resolved has no intrinsic
height." />

is not to be found anywhere anyway in the spec. Usually, when a
containing block dimensions is not resolvable, the usual consequences
that it brings to the related element's dimensions is that it must
assume the 'auto' value, not 0.

Intrinsic dimensions
    The width and height as defined by the element itself, not imposed
by the surroundings. CSS does not define how the intrinsic
dimensions are found. In CSS 2.1 only replaced elements can come
with intrinsic dimensions. For raster images without reliable
resolution information, a size of 1 px unit per image source pixel
must be assumed.

To sum up all this, I've put these 5 tests in the NeedsWork status

As always, I welcome feedback on any of this.

Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 03:30:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 03:30:22 GMT